Government Operations Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[John McBain]

Yes. We delivered 95% of that money for those projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. McBain.

Mr. Calandra, for five minutes, please.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you.

I'm hoping you can answer. I've only been here two years, but it seems as if AECL is on the list for some additional funding every year. Is there anybody who can talk about how it is that every year Atomic Energy of Canada comes back for more and more money?

[Christine Walker]

That's a good question as well. However, it's not within the scope of TBS vote 1 and vote 15.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It strikes me, as we go over these all the time, that Atomic Energy just seems to be the one that constantly comes up. It seems we've been at that for many years. We're still at it.

I noted there's also—and I want to thank the analysts, because I think they did a spectacular report in preparing for this— something from EDC, repayments from General Motors and Air Canada. Can you comment on what those were or not?

[Christine Walker]

I apologize.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

What it says is that there were repayments. This is difficult, because you can't answer. Assuming they were repayments of loans that were made, I think I know the General Motors one, but I don't quite recall what the Air Canada one was about. If you could undertake to get back to the committee on those repayments, I'd appreciate that.

[Christine Walker]

Yes, I can do that, absolutely.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

On the infrastructure items, I come from a riding, the entire York Region, that has benefited quite dramatically from the economic action plan. The entire GTA, whether through transit projects in Toronto or roads, bridges, and so on throughout my riding--an emergency management centre has been committed for the town of Markham--a lot of projects have not only been started but are nearing completion right now. I'm assuming that many of the projects listed here are either part of or complementary to Canada's economic action plan and many of the infrastructure projects that have been started.

Of course we know a lot about the success of the economic action plan. I know you can't comment on the fact that 400,000 jobs have been created as part of this. Some of the opposition are sometimes difficult on you because sometimes it's not in the best interest of the opposition to see 400,000 jobs created; it's not in their best interest to see people getting back to work. It's not necessarily in their best interest to see how a program such as this can run efficiently and effectively.

I also know the Auditor General praised the implementation of Canada's economic action plan. I'm wondering if any of you have used the example of how we undertook Canada's economic action plan—again, the Auditor General praised it—as we now proceed on other government expenditures, as we start looking at ways of bringing the budget back into balance while at the same time protecting jobs, spurring growth in the economy, and making sure the government at all levels works efficiently.

[John McBain]

Thank you. I'd be pleased to answer the question.

When the government indicated the opportunity of funding infrastructure projects, all the custodian departments, of course—because they have an inventory, they assess conditions, they identify need—were able to identify opportunities. So we see, through the implementation and the lessons learned of this exercise, the ability to apply those improvements to our ongoing processes.

At Public Works and Government Services Canada we did not invent a special process, we did not develop special rules. We used our existing tools and processes. We sought special authorities to deliver the program, which were approved by the government. We are now seeking to see if those special authorities, having demonstrated them over two years, could be made permanent. We've also seen the benefit of having some additional resources in some of the support areas to speed up the delivery of these programs. And those are applicable.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. McBain.

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

Ms. Bourgeois, you have the floor. You have five minutes.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to put some questions to the representative of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Earlier, we discussed the initiative aimed at helping small and medium-sized companies to put innovative products on the market. It is important for us to understand this initiative correctly. Would you be so kind as to answer a few questions in writing, so that everybody around this table can get the answers? We drafted a report regarding the assistance that we believe the Government of Canada must offer to small and medium-sized enterprises.

How are we going to help the small and medium-sized companies to put innovative products on the market? How will you evaluate the merits of each project? How will you choose different projects? Does this initiative change the mandate of small and medium-sized companies? Will this have a regional impact on the plan for developing small and medium-sized enterprises?

Perhaps you could answer my other question orally. On May 3, 2010, the President of Treasury Board announced that PWGSC would be one of the 13 departments that would undergo a strategic review. Has it begun? Have you already identified the kind of savings you could make? Which are the poorly performing programs that you have targeted up to now? Could you answer these questions very quickly please, because I want to have some time to put some questions to Ms. MacPherson.

[Alex Lakroni]

Let me begin by answering your first question, because I think it is relevant.

The DICP is a program aimed at stimulating the economy and giving small and medium-sized enterprises an opportunity to succeed, as I mentioned earlier. How will we help them? The program has two clearly distinct components.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Lakroni, could you answer us in writing?

[Alex Lakroni]

We will.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Could you send us your answers in writing? It would leave me a little more time.

However, my second question, the one about the strategic review, is important and I would like you to answer it quickly.

[Alex Lakroni]

Very well.

Thank you for the question.

Public Works is one of the 13 departments that were identified this year to conduct this review. We did the review and looked at 100% of our program spending, basically in conformity with the terms and conditions of the review, in order to identify the 5% savings that are expected from us.

So we have used this opportunity to do a comprehensive review. We were driven to ensure that programs are efficient and effective, they meet the priorities of Canadians, and they are aligned with the responsibilities and the mandates of our department.

As I mentioned, we fully complied with terms of reference, which I think are valuable. We also sought independent advice, again in compliance with the terms of reference, from two advisers. And we formulated proposals, which were submitted to Treasury Board as prescribed by the terms of reference on September 16. The final results will be approved in the 2011 federal budget. This is the information I can share with you. Anything specific I'm not at a position to share at this point in time because of confidence of the budget.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Ms. MacPherson, in 2009-2010, a question was put to you about the $61 million dedicated to advice and support for the Prime Minister and for ministers with portfolios. Perhaps you are not the one who was asked this question, but it was perhaps someone from the Privy Council Office who was replacing you. This year, the amount has gone over $74 million.

I would like you to tell me what is meant by “advice and support to the Prime Minister” and if this amount also includes the famous communications plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Be very brief, Madame MacPherson.

[Marilyn MacPherson]

What you are asking me is the difference in program activity (A), which is the support to the Prime Minister. There was a $13 million increase in that year over year in the main estimates. And $6.4 million of that was for chronic funding pressures. A portion of that was directly attributable to the Prime Minister's Office.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you very much.

The chair could recognize Mr. Martin, if Mr. Martin were in his chair.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I would welcome that.

What a treat. Thank you. This is a rare treat, as the lowly NDP usually get one round of questioning.

I do have some questions for the Privy Council Office now. I've just been reviewing the research done by our researchers, and they do raise an interesting point. In dealing with the negotiations with the public service—the round that hasn't been ratified yet, but the agreements have been concluded—it's come to our attention that one of the key items in that round of negotiations was the end to accumulated severance pay, the one week per year of service they earn.

Can I ask you questions about this?

[Marilyn MacPherson]

It wouldn't be the Privy Council who is responsible for that. That's actually taken care of by the Treasury Board.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I know that Treasury Board negotiates with the—

[Carl Trottier, Executive Director, Strategic Compensation Management, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

We'd be more than willing to answer that question.